Jonathan Paul McCauley Collings

Following a trial where plaintiffs obtained $40,000 in damages and injunctive relief, this endorsement addresses costs.

The plaintiffs sought over $100,000 in costs, while defendants argued for proportionality given the damages awarded were within Simplified Procedure limits.

The court considered the plaintiffs' primary objective of injunctive relief, which necessitated the ordinary procedure, and their unaccepted offers to settle.

Despite the high costs relative to damages, the court found the plaintiffs' litigation conduct reasonable and awarded them $90,000 in all-inclusive costs, declining substantial indemnity but recognizing the legitimacy of the expenses incurred.

The plaintiffs sued their neighbours for nuisance arising from the installation and use of an outdoor wood-fired boiler that emitted noxious smoke and odours onto their property.

Prior to trial, the defendants agreed to remove the boiler and consented to an injunction prohibiting its future use, leaving only the assessment of damages to be tried.

The court rejected the defendants' preliminary arguments that the action was barred by res judicata from a discontinued Small Claims Court claim and that no actionable nuisance was established.

Finding that the smoke caused a serious and persistent interference with the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property, the court awarded general damages of $20,000 to each plaintiff.

The parties brought competing applications regarding the proceeds of two life insurance policies owned by their late mother, and both sought an accounting for the time the other acted as attorney for property.

Following a decision where success was divided on the insurance policies and both parties' misappropriation claims were dismissed for lack of standing, both parties sought costs.

The court found that both parties contributed to the complexity and cost of the litigation by raising issues without legal basis.

Consequently, the court ordered that both parties bear their own costs.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim in its entirety, or alternatively, to strike specific paragraphs.

The plaintiff, a former union president, claimed constructive dismissal, breach of contract, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and defamation following a prolonged conflict with the defendants.

The court declined to strike the claim as a whole, finding it provided a logical presentation of the conflict and could be responded to.

However, the court struck several specific paragraphs that contained evidence, irrelevant historical facts, or immaterial references to non-parties, granting the plaintiff leave to amend.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's request for leave to assess a solicitor's account, the successful respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $7,738.41.

The applicant argued for a lower amount based on proportionality and its own costs outline of $1,899.81.

The court found the applicant's outline did not reflect what a losing party could expect to pay given the extensive record and serious allegations raised.

The court awarded the respondent costs in the all-inclusive amount of $5,000.

The bankrupt, a chartered professional accountant, sought a discharge from his second bankruptcy.

The discharge was opposed by the Trustee and the Bank of Montreal.

The court found that the bankrupt was not an honest or unfortunate debtor, having failed to disclose assets, including an inheritance and foreign real estate, and having continued to operate his accounting business under various names after claiming it was closed.

The court made findings against the bankrupt under sections 158 and 173 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court granted a conditional discharge, requiring the bankrupt to pay $325,000 to the Trustee for the benefit of the creditors.

The applicant subtenant sought leave under the Solicitors Act to assess a legal account rendered by the respondent law firm to the landlord.

The applicant had agreed to pay the landlord's legal fees as part of a settlement to transfer the lease after defaulting on rent during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the application, finding no special circumstances to justify an assessment, as the account was not exorbitant and the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement that required full payment of the legal fees.

Ten days after the Court of Appeal granted summary judgment authorizing the responding party to enforce its mortgage, the moving parties brought a motion seeking to declare the enforcement proceedings null and void.

The moving parties argued they were commercial farmers and had not received the required notice under s. 21 of the Farm Debt Mediation Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that the moving parties were barred from raising the issue at this late stage since mortgage enforceability was squarely at issue on the appeal.

The court found no credible evidence that the moving party was a commercial farmer and deemed the motion an abuse of process intended to delay creditors.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to recover legal ownership of a property she transferred to her defendant daughter in 2012.

The plaintiff argued she did not understand the legal effect of the transfer documents and that the transfer was subject to a resulting trust.

The defendant argued the transfer was a completed gift.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiff intended to gift the property while retaining a life interest, and had simply changed her mind years later.

The defendant parents sent an email to the local ringette community complaining about the treatment of their daughter by her volunteer coaches and the league.

The plaintiff coaches sued for defamation, seeking $35,000 in damages.

The defendants brought a motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action as a SLAPP.

The court granted the motion, finding that the email related to a matter of public interest and that the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the minimal reputational harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its application for summary judgment for possession and sale of the respondent wife's property.

The respondents had guaranteed the indebtedness of a corporation to the appellant, with the wife granting a mortgage on her property as collateral.

The motion judge found the mortgage unenforceable due to presumed undue influence by the husband.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge failed to consider the nature of the transaction and the wife's significant interest in the corporation.

The Court held that even if the presumption arose, the appellant took sufficient steps to ensure the wife entered the transaction freely, and the presumption was rebutted by the wife's own evidence.

The applicant sought to recognize and enforce a New York judgment for over USD$6.7 million against the respondents, who had provided personal guarantees.

The respondents resisted on grounds of public policy, natural justice (alleging a conflict of interest by the applicant's New York law firm), and that the proceeding should have been an action, not an application.

The court rejected the public policy and natural justice arguments because the conflict issue was not raised in the New York court, emphasizing judicial finality and comity.

The court also found that an application was appropriate as there were no material facts in dispute.

The New York judgment was recognized and enforced.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $40,985.14 under Rule 20.06, arguing the plaintiff acted unreasonably by pursuing a partial summary judgment contrary to appellate authority.

The plaintiff argued for costs in the cause or on a partial indemnity basis, and claimed costs thrown away for a prior adjournment.

The court found the motion was unnecessary and contrary to the principles of proportionality, but noted that some of the preparatory work would be useful for the main action.

The court awarded the defendant fixed costs of $15,000, payable at the conclusion of the action.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant general contractor for unpaid work on a construction project.

The general contractor's contract with the owner had been terminated due to delays, and the general contractor alleged the subcontractor contributed to those delays.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring trial because granting partial summary judgment risked inconsistent findings with the main action between the owner and the general contractor, where the subcontractor's role in the delay was a live issue.

The defendants sought their costs of the action, including a summary judgment motion brought by the plaintiff which resulted in the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the plaintiff acted unreasonably in bringing the motion.

The court found the plaintiff's motion was reasonable, as instances of undue influence being successfully established are rare.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $49,000 to the first defendant and $1,000 to the second defendant.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment to enforce a collateral mortgage on an Ontario property owned by the defendant wife, which secured a loan to her husband's company.

A New York court had previously found the personal guarantees valid.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice declined to apply issue estoppel, finding it would work an injustice.

The court held the mortgage was unenforceable because it was the product of presumed undue influence by the husband, of which the plaintiff had constructive notice, and the plaintiff failed to ensure the wife received independent legal advice.

The action was dismissed.

This litigation arose from a failed real estate deal between a developer (applicant) and property owners (respondents).

The applicant sought summary judgment for unjust enrichment and breach of a 2013 agreement of purchase and sale (APS), while the respondents sought partial summary judgment on their counterclaim and dismissal of the applicant's claims.

The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding a valid contract constituted a juristic reason for the enrichment.

However, the court found the respondents breached the 2013 APS by refusing to close, rejecting their argument that a subsequent 2015 conditional APS nullified prior rights.

Damages for breach of contract and the respondents' counterclaim were deemed unsuitable for summary judgment due to incomplete records and interconnectedness.

The applicant's motion to amend its reply and defence to counterclaim was granted.

The court also strongly condemned the respondents' counsel's misconduct during a witness examination.

The moving party, a municipal councillor, sought partial summary judgment to dismiss a counterclaim alleging defamation, intentional infliction of mental suffering, harassment, and abuse of power.

The counterclaim arose from a social media post about the responding party's previously withdrawn and vexatious court application.

The court granted partial summary judgment, finding the defamation claim was defeated by the defences of justification and fair comment.

The remaining claims were dismissed due to a lack of evidence and statutory immunity under the Municipal Act, 2001.

This appeal concerns the management of Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 396 following a 35-day trial.

The trial judge found that the director engaged in oppressive conduct including self-dealing, lack of financial disclosure, charging personal legal fees to the corporation, failing to declare conflicts, refusing to produce court-ordered records, and implementing an invalid by-law.

The trial judge ordered termination of the condominium corporation, declared the director's oppressive conduct, held the director personally liable for costs, and awarded common expense arrears to the corporation.

The appellants challenged the oppression finding, personal liability, and termination order.

The respondents cross-appealed the timing of arrears payment and the cost award against them.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upheld the oppression finding and termination order, confirmed personal liability for the director, and modified the cost award.

The plaintiffs, a mayor and a town councillor, sued the defendant for defamation over several Facebook posts criticizing their conduct in municipal governance.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that the defendant's expressions related to matters of public interest.

The plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendant had no valid defence of fair comment for most of the posts, and the court concluded that the public interest in protecting the defendant's political expression outweighed any harm to the plaintiffs' reputations.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.